They'll never leave you alone
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
What's the mathematical difference between paying a fee to borrow money, or paying interest on the money borrowed? Your paying extra to get access to that money today. If the extra amount is the same either way then what difference does it make?
Alright, so you don't want any private lending businesses to exist at all. All lending should come from the government, based on it's racially focused goals. So if someone wants to borrow money to build a factory, they have to convince some bureaucrats that this factory will benefit white people. But if that factory / business fails and the loan is not repaid, then the government, and therefore the society as a whole bears the cost. It seems to have a similar problem as the government guaranteed student loan business. You have people in charge of deciding who gets money, that don't have skin in the game as it were. The government guarantees the loans, meaning the general population bear the risk, without having any say in the matter. I won't conclude it's necessarily worse than the system we have now, but I don't think it's a utopian solution either. I kind of like the notion of a real free market in lending, where individual lenders are responsible for calculating risk, and bear the costs of that risk directly.
I don't really care about the gap between rich and poor. I don't think that's an issue at all. Even if it's true, so what? Am I supposed to be angry that Jeff Bezos can buy himself luxury yachts and I can't do the same? Isn't that just an expression of envy? What I care about is my quality of life. More generally I could be concerned about the quality of life of the people in my community. I don't want to live in some dystopian hellscape of shanty towns like South Africa or Brazil. So I don't care about the gap between the richest and poorest, I care about the living standards of the poorest. And that's kind of a mixed bag. Sure there are crazy people and junkies that are completely destitute dregs - but for the most part even the poorest people in the USA have it pretty fucking good. People that are sober don't have to live on the streets or go hungry. There's all kinds of government programs and charities to assist people on hard times.
I do agree though about the niggers. Import the third world become the third world. I just don't really agree that the solution requires a purely European ethnostate. Even Hitler admired the Japs.
Good lord man. Talk about being comfortable with your chains.
> What's the mathematical difference between paying a fee to borrow money, or paying interest on the money borrowed? Your paying extra to get access to that money today. If the extra amount is the same either way then what difference does it make?
None. You have answered your own question. If both interest and fee are the same amount, there's no difference.
I think what you're trying to ask is if the "fee" will be lower than the "interest". The answer to that question is always yes.
> It seems to have a similar problem as the government guaranteed student loan business.
Not in the slightest. The student loan business was predicated on bullshit and huffed farts. (((Scholars))) and (((universities))) telling kids they can blow all their parents college savings on 4 years of useless Diversity Equity Officer degrees and still keep the economy rolling.
Firstly, the student loan program included minorities. It was NOT beneficial for Whites, judging by the degrees, and it looks like we're going to be paying for it again.
Secondly, the education system has long been sacked. Lots of feminists and harpy's berating young men and spitting jewish learned horseshit at them like it's gospel. Useless degrees are purposefully championed while blue collar or tradesmen work is treated as less than.
Thirdly, you shouldn't have to take out loans for education. Back in 1950-1960's america, you could put yourself through college on a part time job. The country had a more cohesive culture and education was seen as self betterment, not an enterprise to be gamed and used to trick and hurt young people.
> I kind of like the notion of a real free market in lending, where individual lenders are responsible for calculating risk, and bear the costs of that risk directly.
If we actually had a free market. Right now the bank bears no risk in lending money because it's all fractional reserve banking. It can create money and capital out of thin air.
> I don't really care about the gap between rich and poor. I don't think that's an issue at all. Even if it's true, so what? Am I supposed to be angry that Jeff Bezos can buy himself luxury yachts and I can't do the same? Isn't that just an expression of envy?
I agree the successful should be able to exceed without limits. In a culturally harmonious society, this does not look like what the billionaires of america are doing today. These people don't give a fuck about the future of america or its White peoples. They're either already a part of the jew fold, or are only in it for themselves, even though their vast amounts of wealth could help thousands while they still sit comfortably on a beach planning their childrens childrens future.
It's also reasonable to worry about the LCD. But even the poorest of Whites are more reasonable and well behaved than rich niggers. The culture at the bottom level is also massively important, but that's also where it's most under assault.
> I do agree though about the niggers. Import the third world become the third world. I just don't really agree that the solution requires a purely European ethnostate. Even Hitler admired the Japs.
It will work for any country of peoples who want self determination and no central jew bank. That's the beauty of NatSoc. While it's inherently a White ideology, it could theoretically work for any culture of peoples.
God damn, what a waste of time.
I can borrow money on my property at 3.25% and invest that money in the stock market and easily make 10-15%, and probably a lot more. Paying down my mortgage debt is a stupid use of my money. I'm better off carrying that debt and using it.
What argument are you even making? What tangent did you follow off into the weeds to start talking about borrowed credit against your home?
And you've completely outed yourself at this point.
> Paying down my mortgage debt is a stupid use of my money. I'm better off carrying that debt and using it.
Only a kike or completely subverted shabbos thinks paying off debt is a bad thing, or thinks about using debt for other than what it is. Nothing in this kiked monetary system says you can't, of course, but this is what I'm talking about ladies and gentlemen. This is the all encompassing enterprise and it's obvious this disgusting kike supports and loves it.
*"I love being in debt! I love my 40 year mortgage! It's standard, don't ya know!!!??? I can take borrowed money against my inflated debt, errr, I mean house, and risk it in the stock market! Shalom!"*
What a shit world view.
Honestly, drink bleach. Run down to the dollar tree, because I know you love a deal, buy a gallon of Bleach brand Bleach™ and drink the whole fucking thing.